W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2009

Re: [ontolog-forum] Metamodel for ontology registration/ Re: [ontolog-forum] One new English word every 98 minutes

From: ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <688707.53905.qm@web45515.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
To: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>
Cc: "\[ontolog-forum\]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>, Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>, semanticweb@yahoogroups.com
Dear Paola,

I have been searching for literature dealing with formal logic vs Tibetan logic from a mathematical viewpoint and have found that very little has been done on this subject.

The point I was trying to make is that the same hardwired pathways in the brain that we humans utilize in language, be it for communication or internal reflection, thought processes and scientific reasoning are utilized or seem to be utilized in Tibetan logic.

Now mathematically speaking formal logic is the highest level of logic indeed, but also the most restrictive, because of the Godel-Skolem theorems.

As soon as you utilize the set of natural numbers and the axiom of choice, which both happen when you start defining concepts and assigning symbols, symbol sets and creating variables, functors, functions and other relational identifiers, whatever superstructure you create is bound by Godel-Skolem.

It has been a suspected hypothesis that natural language can circumvent the formal logic limitations.

The key is to avoid as the observer instantiation of entities and assigned symbols, attributes etc., much like in quantum physics.

This is exactly what Tibetan logic seems to do.

For the semantic web, linked data we need formal structures, a formal logic..

The clue is how we can glean  some useful insights from Tibetan logic to be able to minimize our formal structures.

Somehow I feel that we have to look very hard again at what we call (formal) (logic) templates and come up with more universal, simplified categories.

Our western tradition in logic and particularly modern formal logic barely spans three centuries.

The Tibetan scholars have worked for over a millennium and a half on similar issues.

It would be outright arrogant to assume they have NOT come up with any useful knowledge and insights, that can be put to good use in our western science.

Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
www.rainbowwarriors.net
Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide
www.projectparadigm.info
NGO-Opensource: Creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide for Project Paradigm
www.ngo-opensource.org
MetaPortal: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development
www.metaportal.info
SemanticWebSoftware, part of NGO-Opensource to enable SW technologies in the Metaportal project
www.semanticwebsoftware.info


--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com> wrote:

From: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Metamodel for ontology registration/ Re:  [ontolog-forum] One new English word every 98 minutes
To: metadataportals@yahoo.com
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>, "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>, "SW-forum" <semantic-web@w3.org>, semanticweb@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 9:17 AM

Milton

I never ventured as far as Tibetan logic on this list, but if you check the archive there is a discussion about chinese logic.

Having lived in the east,  and studied eastern thinking, and loving it,  I am convinced that there is a distincion between western and non western logic (affectionaly referred to as 'chinese logic' in the discussion), while JohnS and other writing referenced in the discussion say that logic (such as fol) is universal and does not differ across cultures and languages, 


I have not yet systematically researched the subject yet, but although surely FOL is the top level logic for any logic, I am pretty sure there differences  would benefit from being researched and codified further


I am collecting a few examples but not ready to share yet

it would be good if could come up with some practical example/analysis how tibetan logic differs from classical western logic if you can think of somethin


I expect at some point we would have to find a way to proof/formalise any empirical findings

PDM






On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:50 AM,  <metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:


It seems some simplification is urgently in order in this labyrinth of standards.

Getting back to my earlier email about endangered languages and focusing too much on the lingua franca of the internet, I humbly suggest to first borrow some common-sensical thinking from Tibetan Buddhist logic to simply the formal discussion about entities, attributes and conceptual ideas laid down in the 100 plus standards.


The buddhists refrain from hard formal logic, yet seem to be able to capture in generalized, precise terms the essence to make clear distinctions between e.g. entities and attributes.

It is no coincidence that this clear thinking from the East resurfaced and was put to use in coming to terms with the fundamental philosophical issues in quantum physics.


In the end the semantic web deals with natural languages
 and in most cases natural languages in restricted domains.

The jury is still out on how to best formally describe the latter.

I am myself a speaker of a Caribbean creole language derived from Portuguese, and have in the past studied aspects of the utilization
of computational linguistics in selected (read restricted) domains to enhance the communicative competence of Creole Language as  written languages.

Creole languages form an interesting field in natural language studies and may point to simplified structures for formalizing natural languages.


My humble hypothesis: the formal structures for creole languages and the substrate theories for older languages with larger lexica enriching and helping mature creole languages (and pidgins into creole languages) can give us some useful insights into the minimal formal structure requirements for both the natural language and ontology issues.


Since the language acquisition in the utilization of a creole language in a native and non-native speaker seem to follow similar "routes" in the linguistically hardwired pathways in our brains, such simpler natural languages might just provide a simpler formalization.


Milton
 Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
www.rainbowwarriors.net

Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide
www.projectparadigm..info
NGO-Opensource: Creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide for Project Paradigm

www.ngo-opensource.org
MetaPortal: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development

www.metaportal.info
SemanticWebSoftware, part of NGO-Opensource to enable SW technologies in the
 Metaportal project
www.semanticwebsoftware.info


--- On Sat, 6/13/09, Azamat  wrote:


From: Azamat 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Metamodel for ontology registration
To: "[ontolog-forum] " 
Cc: "John F. Sowa" , "'SW-forum'" , semanticweb@yahoogroups.com

Date: Saturday, June 13, 2009, 7:14 PM

John,

Thank you for alerting about another International Standard candidate, now a unifying framework for classifying and registering metamodels, models and normative model elements.

The message of the specification is in Metamodel framework for interopreability: part-2: Core model (97 pages); http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N1801-1850/32N1848T-text_for_ballot-FCD3_19763-2.pdf (defined as "framework for registering artefacts that are based on metamodel amd model").

The substance of MFI core model is the terms and definitions section, based on UML and MOF terms, starting with "abstraction", defined as "essential characteristics of an entity that distinguish it from all other kinds of entities", seemingly confused with "attribute". Entity defined as "any concrete and abstract thing that exists, did exist, or might exists including associations among (instances of these) things."

In the random order, there also given  the senses of object, artefact, instance, container, and class, metaclass, classifier, class diagrams, and classification; characteristic, attribute, feature and property; operation and role; relationship, with its subclasses,
 subtype, superclass, supertype, association, generalization, specialization, dependency, link, and pattern. Relation is narrowly defined as "semantic connection among model elements".
Some meanings are interesting, as conceptual data model, "data model representing an abstract view of the real world", concept, framework, or class diagram, " a collection of model elements such as classes, types, and their contents and relationships", or class itself, "description of a set of objects sharing the same attributes, operations, methods, relationships and semantics".

Re. Ontology registration, its classification mechanism is based on so-called "labelling-quadrant", involving four basic notions: ModelSign (with its definition), ModelConcept, ModelInstance, ModelSelection, all used to label and classify ontology components. International Registration Data Identifier (IDRI) is relied on data identifier, registration authority identifier, and version
 identifier; an example: modelsign format: sign/conceptid/domain name/rai/version.
Metadadata Registry components (Data Element Concept, Conceptual Domain, Value Domain, Data Element).
Given that we are lost in all sorts of information standards, just w3c has been managed to create 110 standards (must be in the Guinness book of records), another one will not make a difference unless it is involving ontology.. Then it should be recognized that the specification is lacking effective modeling constructs, as many other existing ontology language standards, and as such, hardly can make a standard for ontology registry, imo..

Strongly believe any standardization work involving ontology and semantic technology standards needs a deep fundamental research tested with effective knowledge and content systems and real world applications.

Azamat Abdoullaev

http://www.standardontology.org


----- Original Message ----- From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:59 PM
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Metamodel for ontology registration


> The Final Committee Draft (FCD) of the Metamodel for ontology

> registration:
> 
> http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N1801-1850/32N1831T-text_for_ballot-FCD_19763-3.pdf

> 
> This is part 3 of the ISO/IEC 19763, Information Technology -- Metamodel
> Framework for Interoperability (MFI):
> 
> http://metadata-stds.org/19763/index.html

> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/

> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@ontolog.cim3.net

> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3..net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 16:55:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:58 UTC